Why Not Religious Charter Schools?

Let religious schools become part of the charter system.

The tragedy of urban education is the dearth of effective schools
for poor kids. That acute shortage belies the right nominally conferred
by the federal No Child Left Behind Act, namely that parents can move
their children from failing public schools to better ones. Many
communities have nowhere near enough capacity in well-functioning
schools to provide an education haven for those thousands of
youngsters. (In cities like New York and Chicago, we're talking
hundreds of thousands.)

Federal law also says such kids may go to charter schools, but there
aren't enough of them, either, at least not the highly effective
kind.

Let religious schools become part of the charter
system.

How to get more? Take advantage of the charter option and become
more creative and open- minded. Many cities with weak public schools
have strong churches and faith- based organizations. And one thing that
many parents crave for their children is a school that not only teaches
the 3 R's, not only keeps Tony and Tanika safe, not only gives them a
teacher who knows their names and cares if they're learning—but
that also supplies them with values, morals, a code of behavior, and a
sturdy faith in God.

Yet the No Child Left Behind legislation doesn't include the right
to go to private schools, where such things are routine. Paul G.
Vallas, the chief executive officer of the Philadelphia school system,
is seeking a way around that restriction, hoping to send disadvantaged
youngsters from troubled public schools into archdiocesan classrooms
that have space and are willing. But, like vouchers, this is an uphill
political battle. And even with voucher aid, many children who would
benefit from the curricular and moral offerings of private schools
cannot afford to matriculate. But faith-based organizations seeking to
operate zero-tuition charter schools have, until now, been compelled to
exclude all forms of religiosity—thus quashing one of their major
incentives to serve children and barring one of the things they do
best.

Solution: Let religious schools become part of the charter system so
long as they're willing to abide by the results-based accountability
arrangements that other charter schools must accept, namely state
academic standards and tests. And allow churches to found new charter
schools without shedding their sectarianism.

In most countries, this wouldn't qualify as an innovation, for they
assume that government has an obligation to support church-affiliated
as well as secular schools. In the United States, however, a daft
reading of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause was long held
to bar public aid to religious schools.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 Zelman decision changed this.
It said there's no federal prohibition on state dollars going to such
schools so long as this results from free and open choices by parents.
It thus legalized voucher programs in several states and others
struggling to be born, including the new one in Colorado and the
District of Columbia plan now pending in Congress.

But vouchers aren't the only education innovation that Zelman
makes possible. Charter schools, too, get public dollars only when
parents freely choose them. No child is compelled to attend a charter
school. If parents don't select it, it has neither pupils nor
revenue.

Yes, charter schools must be "sponsored" by state-approved agencies,
and some will see excessive "entanglement." But private schools also
need state licenses and, under the pending District of Columbia voucher
program, must accept other constraints devised by Congress. Doing so
will not, however, erase their religious character.

In most countries, this wouldn't qualify as an
innovation, for they assume that government has an obligation to
support church-affiliated as well as secular schools.

True, other differences remain between private and charter schools.
Wholly private schools can restrict attendance to members of their
faith and expel youngsters who refuse to behave. They can operate
separate programs for girls and boys and need not comply with Uncle
Sam's myriad rules for educating children with disabilities.

Because they value such freedoms, many private schools will shun
greater involvement with government. So be it. But some would welcome
the opportunity to serve more children. In most places, per-pupil
funding for charters, meager as it is, exceeds current tuition
levels—and is more than vouchers would bring. In any case, the
entanglements that accompany charter school status are not much
worse— as is becoming clear in Florida, where new rules are
raining down upon private schools that take part in that state's
several voucher programs. It's a calculation each school can make for
itself.

A few private schools have converted to charter status, but they did
so by severing all religious ties. A few others have created sister
schools that operate as charters. I visited an interesting pair of
schools in Houston, one private (and religious), the other charter (and
secular), sharing facilities but functioning as separate
organizations.

Creating a secular sister school is one viable model for a parochial
school or church that wants to serve more kids. It may be the only
option in states with "Blaine amendments" that prohibit public dollars
from flowing into religious institutions no matter what the Supreme
Court says about the U.S. Constitution. But in the dozen or so states
without such impediments, why not try religious charter schools?

Watchdog groups will rush back to court at the first sign of a new
breach in their cherished "wall of separation," and in time this
education innovation would also wind up in the Supreme Court. But
that's no reason to forgo it. Cash-strapped states may fear the
budgetary impact of private school pupils suddenly qualifying for
public subsidies. Yet that cost can also be contained. Since many state
charter laws bar private school conversions, most religious charters
would be new schools, serving kids not already in the private school
orbit—and adding to the supply of seats in decent schools for
youngsters who need them.

Overriding all objections is America's woeful lack of such seats.
Every possible asset should be brought to bear on the creation of more.
Religious charter schools deserve consideration.

Chester E. Finn Jr., a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at
Stanford University, is the president of the Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation, in Washington. He was the assistant U.S. secretary of
education for research and improvement in the Reagan administration.

Vol. 23, Issue 15, Page 48

Published in Print: December 10, 2003, as Why Not Religious Charter Schools?

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.